Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-07-30
sT0REY's PAST LIFE.
The Marital 4 fairs of a
Dead ChicsgO Journ-
3list Revived.
An Old Divorce case.--The Subject
Of AIimony---impoftant Decision
by Judge Moran.

CHICAGO, July 29.-The case Of Mrs.
Maria P. Storey against Mrs. Eureka Q.
Storey; and others was decided by the
appellate court, that tribunal affirming
the decision of Judge Tuley in the circuit
court. The proceeding was for alimony
obtained by Mrs. Maria p. Storey, who
was the first wife of Wilbur B. Storey.
The decree for divorce was entered In the
circuitcourtin 1868, and provided that Mr..
Storey should pay Mrs. Maria 2. Storey
So, 900 per annum alimony as long as
| she remained sole and unmarried. MI.
Storey gave a bond Of $50, 600 to carry out
the terms of the decree, and executed a
trust deed to Sydney Myers on lots l and
Q in block 81, original town Of Chicago,
as security for the payments. In August,
1882, Mr.. Storey sold to John @. Adams
the land covered by the trust deed, and
took back from Adams a note for $50, 900,
which was secured by a trust deed on the
same property from Adams to Hon. Lam
bert Tree. After the death of Mr.. Storey
and pending a contest of his will, Mrs.
Eureka G. Storey filed a bill in the cir
| Quit court and procured a receiver to con
serve and manage the Storey estate, The
| note to Adams came with other property
into the receivers hands, and he was di-
rected by the court that from the interest
collected on the note for $50, 900, and the
money received by him in the conduct of
| the business of the estate, to pay So, 900
per annum to Maria T. Storey in quart
erly installments of $500, In accordance
with the decree n agreement in regard
to the altmony when the decree of divorce
was entered. Afterward Mrs. Eureka @.
Storey moved the court to rescind the
order directing the payment to Maria p.
Storey, and the latter made q cross-mo-
ton to have the alimony continued. The
court rescinded the order directing the
payments, and ordered that the payment
of any sum by the receiver to Maria P.
Storey be stopped. From that order she
appealed to the appellate court.
Judge Moran, who delivered the opin-
ion of the appellate court, says the only
question is whether the decree of divorce
requiring Mr.. Storey to ay the So, 600
created an obligation on Mr.. Storey's
heirs to pay it after Mr.. Storey's death,
or whether the obligation does not bind
the heirs. He says: ttAlimony in di-
vorce law is the allowance which a hush
and pays by order of the court to his wife
while living apart from her for her main
sohoiiSS lad w llS COuIlRuduC6 dlIer the
I husbands death, the supreme court says:
we know of no case in which it has been
held to be a debt continuing after the
death OF the husband and against the
heirs, but directly the contrary was held
in O'Hagan VS.. O'Haea:i 4 Iowa, 500,
and as We think, on sufficient reason
Ii was contended by Mrs. NJ. r. Storey
that because the decree recited that ali
mony should be paid as long as she re-
mained sole ard unmarried, it was In
tended, therefore, to be continued after
MIR. Storey's death, for she did not cease
to be unmarried when he died. We can
not assent to this view, because, by the
terms of the decree, the right to alimony
would cease upon the marriage of Mrs.
Storey. buff she remained sole, her right
to the alimony would continue as long as
the duty to pay alimony subsisted; i. e.,
during the life of the husband. The de-
cree falls far short or charging on the
heirs the duty of paying the alimony.
Upon the death of her husband she be-
come entitled to dover in his property,
and to give her alimony in addition tho
intention must be plainly manifested in
the decree, which was not done. The
circuit courts order is therefore af-
1 frn,ed